GC benchmarks

[Paul Hohensee]

Actually, specjbb2005 stresses gc more than jbb2000.  The latter can be 
gamed to
avoid gc entirely during the timed intervals of the run, whereas the 
former cannot.
Also, the timed intervals of the run in jbb2005 are 4 minutes long 
compared with
2 minutes in jbb2000, which pretty much guarantees at least a young gen 
collection
during a timed interval.

Paul

Dan Hicks wrote:
> The old SPECjbb2000 benchmark was pretty much a pure test of GC 
> peformance (with a little bit of pure CPU overhead thrown in).  The 
> (current) SPECjbb2005 benchmark was modified to throw in more system 
> complexity (though I don't recall the details) and is less of a GC 
> benchmark.
>
> http://www.spec.org/jbb2000/results/
>
> Unfortunately, the results aren't real current, and aren't organized 
> in a way to allow you to compare GC algorithms very readily.
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:01:57 -0400
>> From: Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy at gmail.com>
>> Subject: GC benchmarks
>> To: hotspot-gc-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Message-ID:
>>     <194f62550906021101j4a3dacfbx3219a344bb91ed at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just for fun, does anybody know some benchmarks comparing the
>> different GCs available with some real-world load?
>> I would be interested in results for small servers (4-16P), like
>> memory overhead, pause times, throughput impact.
>>
>> I know basically how the different GCs work, however I hadn't much
>> luck finding hard numbers ;)
>>
>> Thank you in advance, Clemens
>>
>>
>> End of hotspot-gc-dev Digest, Vol 24, Issue 1
>> *********************************************
>>
>>   
>